Freedomain Radio

I'm hoping this post will attract Stefan's attention, I'd like to hear his response.

I'm sorry if what I'm going to write here is old news, already hashed and rehashed. It probably won't be anything new, but here goes anyway...

I was listening to one of Stefan's podcasts. Now unfortunately I can't remember which one. I think the podcast dealt with proving the existence of UPB. Stefan lists 5 different arguments in favor of UPB, and each one itself had multiple steps. I wish I had a link to the podcast, but I don't.

Now I was trying to quantify my reaction to hearing that podcast. It took a while but the impression I was left with was this:

I think Stefan's argument for the existence of UPB is an example of substituting volume for logical rigour. Specifically when I was listening to the 5 different approaches to proving UPB is viable, the proofs were coming fast and loose. I didn't slow down and pause after each one to work through the logic carefully. Rather all the words blurred together.

I did recall that one argument brought up the collapse of the USSR. The failure of communism. There was an assertion that it has been proven for 80 years that communism will fail, yet we haven't gotten past it. And the collapse of the USSR is provided as proof par excellance that communism & centrally controlled economies must fail. This is provided almost as a given.

Now I agree with Stefan's conclusions about the benefits of a stateless society and all the evils of coercive government and the government having a monopoly on force. I used to say I was a libertarian, now Stefan's philosophy is even beyond that, and I embrace it wholeheartedly. However what I question is whether it is even possible to prove, with mathematical rigour, that UPB can exist. The point being (I understand) that once it is proven that UPB must exist, then the question becomes what is the best set of UPB?

My point in bringing up the USSR example is that Stefan gives 5 arguments in favor of the viability of UPB, and he uses the certain failure of communism as an example, and the USSR's collapse as an irrefutable piece of evidence. I assert that the use of this in a formal argument is without rigour, because the failure of communism and the USSR is not proof positive that communism will always fail.

I certainly am not a communist and would never willingly live under such a system. But the fact is there are a lot of openings that communists could use to discredit all historical experiments at communism. For example in the case of the USSR the USSR didn't exist in a vacuum. It existed alongside the US empire, which was constantly picking at it. The USSR was intentionally bankrupted by US efforts at bringing it down. The USSR had to utilize precious economic surplusses in national defense.

As an example, recently a fellow was describing the effects of the B1 bomber program on the former USSR. These planes were built to irritate the USSR. First they were targeted at very high altitude bombing attack on the USSR. So the USSR had to develop missiles that could bring down a high flying aircraft, and deploy it all over their borders. So the US retooled the B1 and had them now capable of flying low to the ground, under radar, forcing the USSR to develop a new defense. The way this fellow described it is that the B1 program could be retooled in its mode of attack for 2 billion dollars, but the USSR's defense response would cost on the order of 100 billion dollars.

Moreover I know of stories where the US sold technology to the USSR that was built to fail in subtle ways. It would work for a while, then it would fail. So the USSR wasted hard currency reserves on technology that actually ended up costing them even more.

The point is that the USSR was not an example of communism without competition. Its communism was in violent competition with American capitalism, and it was crippled as a result. This competition leveraged the whole concept of free market capitalism being more efficient than centrally managed economies.

But what of communism in the absence of competition? I think that might be what the NWO types and the US government itself is striving for. In a world where the entire world is centrally managed, there is no "Free" outsider that can keep poking at it and drive it into economic collapse. As such the dream of a communist/socialist state can become a reality. It scares the crap out of me when I think of it, actually. The USSR didn't collapse because it must collapse eventually, it collapsed because it couldn't compete with free market capitalism. Get rid of the free market capitalism and communism can perhaps thrive! And what an awful world it would be. But so many, many people would likely embrace such a world. They'd not always be having to rush to keep up with changing technology. They could expect their children to inherit a life + livelihood similiar to their own -- something we've been losing at an alarming rate (to some). The dream of a simpler life, without pollution and noise, seems to be resonating with a lot of people. Life under communism would certainly offer that slower pace (I'd call it stagnation myself).

Anyway my point above is that Stefan in his 5 point argument in favor of the existence of UPB uses the collapse of the USSR as an arguing point, and I assert that his whole 5 points are not entirely mathematically rigorous , and as proof I have tried to demonstrate that communism is not guaranteed to fail in all circumstances -- something I vaguely recall Stefan as presenting as self evident.

Anyway on to another point. There was a mathematician who embarked on developing all of math when starting with a minimum of assumptions. I want to say it was Bertrand Russel and I suppose it would have been Principia Mathematica. But it might have been someone else. Anyway the point is that the mathematician was surprised to discover that one could construct perfectly viable and consistent mathematical systems that were based on conflicting axioms. As I recall the axiom could be "Parallel lines never meet" or "Parallel lines always meet". He found that either axiom could be used (but not both of course) and in both cases would give rise to perfectly consistent and viable math. So there was no way to fundamentally know _which_ one represented our own reality! Both are internally consistent.

Now in my mind this just illustrates my complaint with Stefan's effort to proving the existence of UPB with mathematical rigour. My effort above was to make the point that his effort (in my opinion, and I'm not a mathematician) is not even rigourous by mathematician's standards. But my point here is that I suspect the effort is fundamentally impossible because it must rest on human preferences, which themselves are rather arbitrary.

Stefan asserts that UPB must inherently require consistency. Meaning UPB must be applied equally to all people in all circumstances for all time. But wishing that the same rules apply to all is itself a preference. To Stefan it is self evident. And indeed I agree that such a scheme is preferable to one that is not consistent. However I can envision there are people who do not value a consistent set of rules at all. Specifically, the ruling elite! Or slave owners.

I can imagine people that are willing to tolerate inconsistency, based on their belief/hope that the inconsistently will always fall in their favor. They can tolerate slavery because they themselves will never likely become slaves, say due to the accident of their birth or the color of their skin. I've seen evidence the Chinese culture laughs at the very concept that there can be a single law for all people -- they embrace, rather, the concept that the poor should have one law, and the rich another -- otherwise what's the point of becoming rich?

I believe that for all the attempts at formalism in the argument in favor of the existence of UPB, the weakness is that evaluating competing UPB systems is subject to human preferences -- and presumably this would imply majority rule.

What I really wish were possible that there was some new area in the universe that was equivalent to The New World. Some place where I and other people could escape to to create a new society based on UPB principles + Anarchism. Some years ago there was an effort at a floating at sea community, and they tried to raise money for the project by selling passports. I think they figured it would cost about a billion dollars per square kilometer of floating community (anchored somewhere at sea in international waters). The whole thing collapsed. The whole idea being to escape _somewhere_ out of the clutches of any coercive government.

I believe it comes down to arbitrary human choices. Suppose you had the option of joining a society based on Stefan's UPB principles, a true Anarchy. There is no social security, no forced taxation, no standing army, no War On Drugs, etc. etc. Whether or not you'd leave the USA in its current form to go to this new society would be an arbitrary human preferance. I'd certainly want to give it a try. I think in the end the only thing that affect change is for enough people to buy into the idea. I don't think the effort to prove it mathematically will serve much use. Rather I think it would be more effective to simply provide the UPB principles and provide the reasoning behind them (which is perfectly fine), and then illustrate how much better life would be in such a society. Both morally and in terms of comfort and happiness. Then leave it up to the movement to grow on its own.

By lucky chance we might be in a good position to capitalize on the ongoing disintigration of the US empire. There will be a void to fill, and if this movement can gain enough enthusiasts, a society based on UPB could stand a chance at viability. Heck, while the US federal government is imposing its will over the 50 states and the world, there isn't much point in trying to escape its reach. But in its absence, there would be a point. It would matter once again which state you lived in. Some are more socialist than others. Some are more free-market than others.

Thanks for reading and I apologize again if I'm just covering old ground. It's new to me, anyway!

-Dave

It's entirely possible that the arguments you're presenting are coming across to us as the shopping list you'll use next week rather than an argument against UPB.  You can't reject that possibility with mathematical certainty.

However, I think that empiricism is pretty powerful and that you use it quite frequently and confidently, even when you have no formal proof.

Mr. C:

It's entirely possible that the arguments you're presenting are coming across to us as the shopping list you'll use next week rather than an argument against UPB.  You can't reject that possibility with mathematical certainty.

However, I think that empiricism is pretty powerful and that you use it quite frequently and confidently, even when you have no formal proof.

What's happening next week? Remember I just got here...

Speaking of arguments, something else occured to me about the arbitrary/subjective nature of UPB.

Certainly any UPB must include the act of rape as being immoral, I suppose.

However as a large male, I can sympathize with the concept that rape being immoral and prevented in some way (private police force?), something that large males are capable of is being denied to them.

Specifically I think the gist of the Anarchy argument is as follows: Small, defenseless women are subject rape by large males. So naturally they must be protected. So to guard against rape, small defenseless women will either have to be in the company of large men who will defend them, or will have to hire a private security force, or they can't go out alone, or someone will have to provide the funds for their protection for them.

Now the society that arises will have taken away a natural advantage that large males posessed -- the ability to rape small females. Certainly the argument must be that such a society is acting under UPB principles, that rape is inherently immoral, etc.

But if UPD dictates that large males must effectively be neutralized such that they have no natural advantage over small females, then isn't that a slippery slope?

Wouldn't it be viable, then, to impose a penalty on smart people, since they hold a natural advantage over stupid people?

My point is that UPD depends on arbitrary judgements as to what is better. One could argue that it is immoral to deny any individual the natural advantages he/she was born with.

Getting back to the rape issue, I presume there is some anarchist vague argument that under the system of Anarchy groups of people will join together and finance private security forces that will defend subscribers from brutal attacks. Effectively each individual wishing the protection of the force must be able to pay for it. Now there will come about individuals who are both poor (broke) and small. As such they won't be able to afford the private security force. So who will protect them?

I suppose it's a pretty weak argument. Merely by expressing concern myself about such people, it's pretty clear those able to pay for the private security force would give them marching orders to just protect everyone, regardless of their having contributed to the service. Stefan made this very point in his podcasts.

But I think the complaint that any UPB must be subject to arbitrary human judgements of what is "better" is still valid. A moral argument against rape is trivial. However one could also argue that morals based on "Survival of the fittest" would lead to a stronger species (humans) in many ways -- and that such an environment would not stigmatize rape at all. Maybe fear of rape would induce all small women to be track stars. And along the "Survival of the Fittest" I think the Klingons in an old Star Trek episode said they believed treating the sick was wrong, the sick should die.

I remain unconvinced that any moral system can be built up independent of an initial set of moral axioms, which themselves would have to be arbitrary and subject to the opinion of the majority.

-Dave

You do know that UPB is in book format, right? And it's free.

dash:

Certainly any UPB must include the act of rape as being immoral, I suppose.

But if UPD dictates that large males must effectively be neutralized such that they have no natural advantage over small females, then isn't that a slippery slope?

Wouldn't it be viable, then, to impose a penalty on smart people, since they hold a natural advantage over stupid people?

My point is that UPD depends on arbitrary judgements as to what is better. One could argue that it is immoral to deny any individual the natural advantages he/she was born with.

Based on what you wrote here, I don't think you understand what UPB is. If you have not read the book before (it's really easy to read), then please do so before you post about UPB. If you have read the book, then I apologize and will gladly carry on this conversation. I hope I didn't come across as rude; it's just much more efficient if everybody is on the same page.

retrapher:

Based on what you wrote here, I don't think you understand what UPB is. If you have not read the book before (it's really easy to read), then please do so before you post about UPB. If you have read the book, then I apologize and will gladly carry on this conversation. I hope I didn't come across as rude; it's just much more efficient if everybody is on the same page.

I'm debating Stefan's proof that UPB is viable. I'm not an expert on the terminology. And no, I haven't read the book in question. Stefan presents a podcast. I'm discussing the contents of his podcast. Not the contents of a book often referred to in the podcast. Stefan says, "I am going to prove X". I'm discussing his proof mostly, and a bit of X.

But if you don't wish to respond until I assert I've read the book in question, you're certainly free to do so. And if everyone feels that way I guess this discussion can be considered dead!

-Dave

Your invitation to debate the central viability (I'm not sure what that means, I'm sorry, are you saying truth value?) of UPB carries with it the implicit proof of UPB.

You cannot debate without Universally Preferable Behavior.

Dave Bockman:

Your invitation to debate the central viability (I'm not sure what that means, I'm sorry, are you saying truth value?) of UPB carries with it the implicit proof of UPB.

You cannot debate without Universally Preferable Behavior.

Click here to play this audio clip

 

I don't think you're getting it. Stefan put up his podcast and included in it are 5 different proofs of something related to UPB. Likely the proof is that there can be such a thing as UPB. Once it is agreed upon that UPB exists, then the question is, what are the UPB's.

I'm taking issue with Stefan's method of argument. It's like he presents a mathematical proof. I just object to the fast & loose way he presents ideas. It's like he's substituting volume for rigor. Throw a lot of things out there that individually are not rigorous. And I site his use of the USSR as proof positive communism is always doomed to failure. That's not a given. It's an assertion/opinion. As such it can't be used in a truly mathematical proof. Hence his "proof" is not rigorous. At least that one aspect of it.

Then I introduce counterexamples to supposed UPB's. It is evidence that not all people will agree on the core UPB's. Therefore it becomes tyranny of the majority (yet again) as to what the actual UPB's are.

Is there anyone here besides Stefan who actually can discuss this stuff without playing the game of

1) Read this huge book, then you will understand

2) Avoid dealing with the issue and parrot back an approach Stefan used

The impression I'm getting is these forums are composed of groupies only. Just as the vast majority of people unthinkingly follows social norms, the vast majority of Stefan Molyneux enthusiasts blindly follow Stefan Molyneux's choices in philosophy. His whole point is you have to think for yourself. I see scan evidence this is actually going on.

(Sigh).

-Dave

I don't think that such rudeness is very productive, Dave. There are other possibilities as to why people may not want to get into the lengthy and complex details of UPB prior to you actually reading or listening to the free book, which is not terribly long at all.

For instance, many people who are long-time listeners here have gone through lengthy UPB debates many times before, and may not want to start from scratch every single time someone new comes along, at least until that person gets up to speed with the general theory. People who are newer or has only recently read the book or listen to the UPB podcasts are probably still coming to grips with the theory, and are probably not too comfortable debating it as yet.

I'm just saying, it's a possibility...

Going through the theory in accurate and explicit detail took me hundreds of pages and months of work, that is rather hard to reproduce in a forum thread.

I don't think that that lashing out at people, calling them in essence blind and dumb sheep, who cannot think for themselves, will get you what you really want -- and I can also tell you that if you are rude and aggressive, but claim to be very interested in ethics, you might sort be missing the point of virtue, if you see what I mean.

You might want to watch the short video below, which goes into the UPB theory in a very compact way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CueDiner6t0&fmt=18

 First off, you do understand that Universally Preferable Behavior is about Ethics?

It is an argument from first principles. Namely that each man (person) owns himself. His property. His liberty.

You bring up rape as an example. An ethical man would prefer a willing partner , or none at all. To put yourself on the other side of the argument, would you prefer to be in a cage with men who consider your rape to be their right? Of course not.

Your other example is the USSR. When you have a system that deprives men of the right to do with their life what they wish, it isn't going to work. You will have passive non cooperation at the very least. I can think of no government actually that allows full liberty. Can you?

The suggestion to read the book is still a good one, as your post seem to imply to me that you did not know the main argument was ethics. The podcast you mention seems to expand on a example. Since you don't know which one, I can't say for sure.

I would also like to point out we prefer civility in our debates. If you are going to attack us ,(or anyone) instead of clarifying your questions, you will not get a very thoughful response. Please familiarize yourself with the theory, before attacking examples. I would add start from the beginning, with the podcasts, but since you seem to be an impatient fellow who wishes to get to the meat of the argument, at least read or listen to the book.

It really isn't all that big. Should take you a few hours at most. See if you really do have an argument about it, or maybe it will make complete (or mostly) sense.

dash:

The impression I'm getting is these forums are composed of groupies only. Just as the vast majority of people unthinkingly follows social norms, the vast majority of Stefan Molyneux enthusiasts blindly follow Stefan Molyneux's choices in philosophy. His whole point is you have to think for yourself. I see scan evidence this is actually going on.

(Sigh).

-Dave

 

I've seen the behavior you're describing before and agree that at times it seems like that, but certainly not in this discussion.

blondie:

 First off, you do understand that Universally Preferable Behavior is about Ethics?

It is an argument from first principles. Namely that each man (person) owns himself. His property. His liberty.

You bring up rape as an example. An ethical man would prefer a willing partner , or none at all. To put yourself on the other side of the argument, would you prefer to be in a cage with men who consider your rape to be their right? Of course not.

Your other example is the USSR. When you have a system that deprives men of the right to do with their life what they wish, it isn't going to work. You will have passive non cooperation at the very least. I can think of no government actually that allows full liberty. Can you?

The suggestion to read the book is still a good one, as your post seem to imply to me that you did not know the main argument was ethics. The podcast you mention seems to expand on a example. Since you don't know which one, I can't say for sure.

I would also like to point out we prefer civility in our debates. If you are going to attack us ,(or anyone) instead of clarifying your questions, you will not get a very thoughful response. Please familiarize yourself with the theory, before attacking examples. I would add start from the beginning, with the podcasts, but since you seem to be an impatient fellow who wishes to get to the meat of the argument, at least read or listen to the book.

It really isn't all that big. Should take you a few hours at most. See if you really do have an argument about it, or maybe it will make complete (or mostly) sense.

 

We have to remove my own personal choices from the discussion. I of course consider rape unethical. But Bubba who is 6'5" and 350 pounds is not going to be having to worry one whit about being on the receiving end. He'll always be the one committing the act. Maybe Bubba considers rape his birthright.

You have to allow for the possibility that humans exist that don't consider rape unethical. As amazing as that may be, I'm sure there are a few. Perhaps the ones that commit rape, now that I think about it. Even the term UPB = Universal Preferred Behaviours, wouldn't Universal imply no exceptions? But if there are exceptions due to personal preference, the decision falls back on tyranny of the majority.

But I think the most important point I'd like to make is that an ethical structure must always rest on some moral axioms that are not themselves proven -- they are givens. Given these moral axioms, one can construct an entire ethical structure that can be completely consistent. However the axioms must themselves be arbitrary. And all they can have going for them is they might be acceptable to a majority of people. Will _all_ people be able to agree on the axioms? Of course not.

OK -- I downloaded the pdf file and it is 134 pages. I'll start reading and see how far I get. Overall there seems to be an automatic consensus that I'm talking through my hat since I admit I haven't read the book.

-Dave

Stefan Molyneux:

I don't think that such rudeness is very productive, Dave. There are other possibilities as to why people may not want to get into the lengthy and complex details of UPB prior to you actually reading or listening to the free book, which is not terribly long at all.

For instance, many people who are long-time listeners here have gone through lengthy UPB debates many times before, and may not want to start from scratch every single time someone new comes along, at least until that person gets up to speed with the general theory. People who are newer or has only recently read the book or listen to the UPB podcasts are probably still coming to grips with the theory, and are probably not too comfortable debating it as yet.

I'm just saying, it's a possibility...

Going through the theory in accurate and explicit detail took me hundreds of pages and months of work, that is rather hard to reproduce in a forum thread.

I don't think that that lashing out at people, calling them in essence blind and dumb sheep, who cannot think for themselves, will get you what you really want -- and I can also tell you that if you are rude and aggressive, but claim to be very interested in ethics, you might sort be missing the point of virtue, if you see what I mean.

You might want to watch the short video below, which goes into the UPB theory in a very compact way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CueDiner6t0&fmt=18

Stefan,

I appreciate your response!

I'd like to share something I've learned in life. When I was in my 20's I was pretty much an a******. Now hold off everyone before saying "But you still are one!", I'm going somewhere with this. I'd spout off whatever my opinion was at the moment, I'd argue forcibly, and I drew people into many very interesting discussions or arguments. I had a saying that, "All good friendships begin with an argument."

Then I got domesticated. At some point I sort of transformed into the popular conception of a "nice guy" and was more careful of my mannerisms, less confrontational, less controversial. This proceeded after my marriage as well. Finally I was the epitomy of what is socially expected of people. Polite, respectful and patient, among other things.

And people to interact with vanished. Such domesticated people are just so boring. If you're always politic people don't engage in discussion. But if you are more of an a****** they are forced into responding. It's life. Sorry, but it works. I've sent kind emails to people I wanted to discuss stuff with, and the emails go unresponded. I send something extremely offensive, and I get a response. What's the lesson to be learned?

So anyway I've decided it is not always best to be as polite as possible. It's OK to let a little bit of impatience/exasperation come through now and then. It's either that or people ignore you. Note I'm not trying to be a troll for argument's sake. But the fact is trolling can be very effective in drawing out responses from people.

Sorry for rambling on. Anyway, Stefan, regarding my evident insults of the readership of these forums, that was influenced by a chat session I had a little before the post I made. During that chat session horror of horrors I was drawn into a debate with a highly offensive individual, the kind I really really hoped did not hang out in these forums. Out of perhaps 5 people that were involved in the chat, 1 was a person I consider toxic and completely unsuited to this place. I want to elaborate a bit more.

Stefan, as you've described in your podcasts somewhat you will have experienced a certain kind of conversation with a certain kind of individual. You related it to a person who is devoutly religious offering to listen to your speil about how misguided religion is. The key point is the individual is listening in name only. Inside they're so cocksure of their beliefs that their contempt for your viewpoint can't help but show itself in how they interact with you. Little sarcastic mannerisms. Thinly veiled insults. Obvious outrage that their core beliefs are, or can be, questioned. Eventual resorts to personal attacks.

Now you have devoted time to describing this type of person. Presumably everyone interested enough to post in these forums or engage in the text chat area would likely be aware of your description, and would be a fan. Doubtless such people hearing your description of that kind of person would say to themselves, "Hah, what a fool! I'm so glad _I'm_  open minded and not like those closed minded zealots!"

And yet this person I was interacting with on the chat room was just exactly that same kind of person -- once the topic of discussion was not the usual fare of FreeDomainRadio.

See, my point is that every time I hope to find a certain, almost mythical kind of person, one that is able to examine _any_ of their core beliefs, eventually it's always the case that that person will have some beliefs that are off limits. Once you go into that area, you're walking in a minefield. I was deeply sorry that the very first time I entered the text chat room here within minutes of this fellow showing up that same old tired song & dance appeared. Minutes for it to appear! Not days or weeks or months. Essentially instantly!

So I'm not convinced that this arena is actually what I hoped it would be, a place where completely freethinking individuals, able to discuss any arbitrary topic without resorting to toxic insults, rudeness or sarcasm, and able to open up any and all of their own beliefs for examination. And in my posting perhaps the disappointment I felt came out.

Incidentally the topic of discussion was Machine Intelligence and the subject was my belief that a fellow named Eliezar Yudkowski is an utter joke and will never succeed in the approach he is pursuing with A.I. And evidently this was a red flag to this one individual. To him, this EY fellow is some kind of diety, and who am I to question his capabilities? But that's what I do. I don't automatically grant anyone blind, unquestioning faith merely because they happen to be popular, rich or the acknowledged expert in some field. Call me crazy but that's the kind of guy I'm.

Likewise, Stefan, I'm prepared to question you yourself. I know I'm coming into the lion's den here, you're surrounded by supporters, but surely this is completely irrelevant to the quest for Truth, is it not? I'm certain you don't want to be surrounded by blind, unthinking followers. Rather, you want such people to "wake up" and acquire the ability to think and reason all by themselves.

A few other points. Sorry about the length of this post but since it's almost certain you're going to read this I want to throw everything in at once. I could write a long paper on "Mediocrity". I've seen far too much of a certain kind of person who rejoices in their own mediocrity. They accept that they'll never, ever, ever amount to anything, never achieve any semblence of greatness, never will make a difference in their life. Such people then, perhaps a a self defense mechanism, deny the utter possibility of anything but mediocrity in any of the ordinary people they come in contact with.

For them, greatness is always "Other people, far away, that I can never have direct contact with." Anyone they ever actually come in contact with must, without a doubt, be equally mediocre. Because if they ever come in contact with genius or someone who is dangerously non-mediocre, their whole belief system is shattered. They then have no excuse for not trying to achieve...basically anything. In order to justify their own mediocrity, they must deny the possibility of genius in others.

An example related to your own podcasts somewhere, you were confronted with people who basically laughed at your ambition to advance philosophy, in some of the fundamental realms. Their attitude is, if the ancients didn't already work it out, none of us possibly have a chance at it. I don't remember what aspect of philosophy you were taking on, maybe free will or determinism or fundamental ethics or something. About all I recalled was that it was a 1000+ year old question and you were proposing to tackle it. And you had to go out of your way to defend that there is even a possibility you might have some level of success! It's like you're battling a universal belief that such an effort is automatically doomed to failure!

Yet when I hear of a person, such as yourself, proposing to tackle such a deep problem, I immediately accept that you might just succeed. I have no problem whatsoever in allowing for the possibility. And I want to cheer you on. And I think anyone who _doesn't_ cheer you on and believe you stand a real chance at being able to pull it off is merely demonstrating their own acceptance of their own mediocrity. I believe anyone can achieve greatness. The biggest obstacle is simply believing that it's possible.

Finally one other point. This is about some remarks you made on FDR1231 Gloe and Mail Interview, November 20, 2008 with Tu Thanh Ha. During that interview you self depreciatingly described your efforts at working on a practical approach to anarchy. You said words to the effect of, "I know this pursuit is completely ridiculous and certainly it's impossible any anarchic society will ever arise in my lifetime, but still..." I take great objection to your pessimistic attitude. If built into the new idea is a conception that it can never succeed in _our_ lifetime, but perhaps our children's children's lifetime, what purpose is there in pursuing it. Show some confidence, man! Societies can turn on dime if they can get caught up on a new paradigm. There is no physical reason why Anarchy can't be achieved somewhere within 5 years. No need to be so pessimistic and out of the gate kill people's hopes that a better world can be made in a brief timeframe.

Anyway I appreciate you very much taking the time to read all this, and I'm thankful for anything and everything you care to write/say in response. Again I want to thank you for responding at all to my prior post. My very best wishes!

-Dave

Paul:

There are people out there who don't eat because they don't like the consequences. Even though it's obviously a bit insane.

Yes, but isn't insanity a judgement of the majority? Universal implies without exception. I'd think "Mostly Preferred Behaviours" would be more accurate.

Regarding the book recently I've struggled (mildly) to overcome a habit I've had all my life where I only consider the point at which I get to "Chapter 1" in a book and beyond is "progress". So when a book commences with:

Dedication --- Forward -- Introduction

Then you get Chapter 1, I always feel like I have to wade through the initial stuff before I can get to "The meat". I suppose I'd prefer if books were C-like and chapters began with 0. So before the Dedication you'd get a "Chapter 0" heading so people like me would have that sense of progress they need...

Sure the book is fine, I do like Stefan's style (although I reserve the right to get tired of it in the future perhaps).

-Dave

I'm on page 32 of the pdf book FDR 2 - Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics.pdf and something is wrong.

For Science, the premise is: if you want to determine a valid truth about the behaviour of matter and energy, it is preferable to use the scientific method.

In this sense, "preferable" does not mean "sort of better," but rather "required."

Ok, this is invalid. "Preferable" does mean "sort of better" and does not mean "required" in this sense. A person can arrive at a valid truth without the  use of the scientific method. One can look at a river and state, "Water always flows downhill." He need not subject it to any test or verification. He has stated a truth that would withstand the scientific method. As such, since he determined a valid truth but did not utilize the scientific method, the scientific method was certainly not required.

The quote goes on to use the term "universally preferable". This general section just doesn't work for me. I'm not sure if it is an unintentional error. Stefan I'd say this is a candidate for a bit of rework.

I make this comment because in the book Stefan asks for our patience that even if along the way he makes a few mistakes, don't reject the overal thesis. I submit this in the hopes it will perhaps be useful in improving the perfection of the work.

-Dave